Image: Nessim Higson (photoillustration); Kevin Summers Getty Images (flower); Paul Taylor Getty Images (hand); Ron Levine Getty Images (girl); Photodisc Getty Images (brain); iStockPhoto.com (skull and egg)
In Brief
- People commonly assume that our species has evolved very little since prehistoric times. Yet new studies using genetic information from populations around the globe suggest that the pace of human evolution increased with the advent of agriculture and cities.
- If we are still evolving, what might our species look like in a millennium should we survive whatever environmental and social surprises are in store for us? Speculation ranges from the hopeful to the dystopian.
When you ask for opinions about what future humans might look like, you typically get one of two answers. Some people trot out the old science-fiction vision of a big-brained human with a high forehead and higher intellect. Others say humans are no longer evolving physically—that technology has put an end to the brutal logic of natural selection and that evolution is now purely cultural.
The big-brain vision has no real scientific basis. The fossil record of skull sizes over the past several thousand generations shows that our days of rapid increase in brain size are long over. Accordingly, most scientists a few years ago would have taken the view that human physical evolution has ceased. But DNA techniques, which probe genomes both present and past, have unleashed a revolution in studying evolution; they tell a different story. Not only has Homo sapiens been doing some major genetic reshuffling since our species formed, but the rate of human evolution may, if anything, have increased. In common with other organisms, we underwent the most dramatic changes to our body shape when our species first appeared, but we continue to show genetically induced changes to our physiology and perhaps to our behavior as well. Until fairly recently in our history, human races in various parts of the world were becoming more rather than less distinct. Even today the conditions of modern life could be driving changes to genes for certain behavioral traits.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
101 Comments
Add CommentFour basic interactions which every system has to go through in their minute spacetime accretions as well as in their whole lives is the ground on which then Darwinian concepts of variations, selections etc do their work. So naturally those four basic interactions have and will have the major say in how the structures of things including human beings develop and will develop in future. More details in my book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore likely is that our species will continue to diversify, but remain 'compatible' with each other(much like dogs are), simply because of the sheer number of people out there and the ease of travel these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd when the occasional war or pandemic breaks out, natural selection will remove all the 'less fit' individuals from the gene pool ... so i would predict that our descendants will become more resistant to diseases/pollution and better at surviving/preventing war...
curious, how evolutionary thinking always leads one towards eugenics and favored races.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismutations are harmful and lead to deterioration.
variation among species is limited, horizontal, and bi- directional. it is a misnomer to call it evolution, micro- or otherwise. it is a deliberately deceitful term used by naturalism's faithful in an attempt to validate evolutionism which is far from fact.
take away our computers, and see how we compare with the minds of even the 15th and 16th centuries. very poorly, is my guess.
anyBODY have spatulated fingers, yet?
If humans arose in Africa how did they manage to reach Europe? They would have been directed by nature from cold to heat, not the reverse!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... They would have been directed by nature from cold to heat, not the reverse!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot necessarily.. my wife's from the phillipines, where's it's always really hot, and she actually prefers the cold of the north...
Keep in mind that the "grass is always greener"...
"mutations are harmful and lead to deterioration."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost mutations are harmless to the point where they're not detectable.
Once in a while there's a mutation that's harmful or even helpful, but even then most of the time you wouldn't even notice it unless you where looking for it.
okay, how many "beneficial" mutations were documented in the "fruit fly experiments" - how many harmful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdo you recommend exposing one's self to mutagens?
if not, why not? especially if one wants to accelerate "evolution"(?)?
For the life of me, I cannot understand why people who do not believe in evolution take the time to read articles about it, let alone post their opinions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWriters on evolution really need to take a basic course in rhetoric so they can at least present their cases with some degree of cogency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fossil record shows that our period of rapid brain growth is over? Excuse me? Is there some directing hand in evolution all of a sudden that dictates a preferred outcome? Strictly speaking, there is absolutely nothing in evolutionary terms that is preventing us from evolving back into bacteria. After all, they are the most successful organisms on the planet at copying their genetic material.
To evolve just means "to change". Anything that has generations evolves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a population to evolve into something different requires a small population or a challege that brings out the differences. On the whole the human population is not evolving in this way.
However this does not mean we are not changing. What we have now is an increase in genetic diveristy. This may sound strange as at the same time we are all coming closer together. The point is the small changes are getting preserved since they go unchalleged for most.
As far as the future...
Parents gentically manipulation their offspring ... don't worry about it ... Think about movies or music that were developed via a "winning formula" they do great for about one season and then no one wants them. A generation of "ideal" kids would be the same. People would see "ideal" as bland and seek uniqueness.
Robots / Borgs taking over ... don't worry about it ... While one can imagine an enitity that can do better than a person at many things, one thing logical entities stuggle with is failure. Say you have the perfect wall street broker borg. When the market collaspes a non-human entitiy will most liekly go into a waiting mode and die whereas a person will get depressed but presented with the situation between hunger and flipping burgers will flip burgers. Logic performs well but fails poorly, illogic performs poorly but fails well.
Another point ... When has doing a good job well meant being rewarded for a job well done amoung humans? If anything we are evolving better snake oil salesmen.
Except that war tends to take out many of the strongest and brightest, especially if there is a draft to swell ranks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere were land bridges from North Africa to Spain, through Egypt, Turkey, East Europe, etc. Migrations following food supply can lead species through and to what may be considered inhospitable regions now. But 20, 50, 100 thousand years ago the landscapes were considerably different. It may have been famine, drought, floods, disease that forced some sapiens ever northward. A tough journey over mountains into a lush valley in the spring and an unwillingness to take on the mountains again when the weather turned brutally cold. Big brains, opposable thumbs -- adaptation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe understanding and acceptance of evolution and logic is evolution in itself. Required critical thinking studies at the high school and university level are affecting the environment we live in and thus affecting what our children live and grow in. The level and ability of communication we are using here is an evolution from are past abilities to communicate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe have numerous advantages over them of that century. i don't think they're visible
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you think it's a little unfair to compare the upper first percentile of Renaissance individuals with that of the average modern individual? We are totally physically advantaged over them, especially considering disease. Education-wise, they were rather gifted. Anyone that really wanted to learn and was committed, had access to a powerful, embracing culture of knowledge. Today, we lose a lot of our best thinkers to poor schools, poor parents, and dilapidated, drug-ridden neighborhoods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf your wife is from the phillipines, and yet she prefers cold, fine for her. I guess she didn't move to you in search of cold. She rather moved deliberately toward cold thereafter discovering she liked cold. This indicates humans were all living under cold temparatures before separating. It is tempting to move from cold to heat, but it is easier to cope from heat to cold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is strange that when we talk about poorly adapted genes we seem to be referring to genes poorly adapted to the pressures of our original, hunter / gather societies rather than our current civilized societies. It is almost as though it was understood that someday we will have to return to our roots and therefore we still need those genes that made life on the savannah possible. It is certainly possible that if there were to be a complete collapse of our environment and technological infrastructure we may find that our existing Stone Age cultures are better adapted for survival than we "civilized" cultures. We may also find that they are no better off, faced with completely new environments and challenges. Either way, if there is a major abrupt change to our environment; there will be an equally abrupt change to our populations. What genes will be selected for survival is anyone’s guess. It seems clear though that many of us have adapted to living in a very large house of cards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, what a refreshing point of view. Our evolution, naturally, should never be slowed unless we reach some utopian plateau, from whence we would have to somehow STOP evolution if that were possible. I think evolution is absolutely amazing, complex, enigmatic, and not fully understood by the masses. Power to the mutation!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-One who knows
Excellent! Of course evolution will continue. Why not? There will always be mutations giving the offspring a reproductive advantage. Viva la Evolucion!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen! Just think of what all of us who wear corrective lenses for our otherwise useless-for-suriving vision. Most of us would perish if our modern genetic position remained static during a societal collapse. On the other hand, just imagine humans even more deceitful and/or challenged than Cheny, Bush, Tom Cruise, Paris Hilton trying to navigate their way through what promises to be an exponentially FASTER world (Moore's law repealed) growth in technology. We will adapt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi!: this article openly states that culture, and not genetics, is the key to survival and reproduction. This assertion has the impplicit content that some cultures deserve not to survive or are going to be eliminated. We have heard about the crimes pf marxists and nazis, but this proposal, or just the acceptance that such an idea can be openly expressed without oposition is just terrifying. Which rules state what culture survives and which one not? Is there a culture trying to take away from reproduction other cultures? Has any form of legally aproved rule endorsed this concept? It looks like a very dangerous proposal or declaration of intentions. May we know more in deep to which cultural or ethnic or religious or political group does the author belong to?. Regards
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy belief is that we are no longer evolving in any particular direction. We are diversifying. Our sheer numbers and the mixing of previously isolated gene pools is causing a great deal of diversification. At the same time, as the article states, genes that normally result in death or reduced reproductive capacity are no longer as big of a deal. Premature babies can be reared in incubators, genetic illnesses can be treated, those incapable of reproducing have artificial alternatives, those who suffer injuries, diseases and any number of malaise can be cured/treated with technology and medicine. So those genes don't matter much and are thus able to spread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis will have one of two effects (in my opinion). Either our species will degrade to become entirely reliant on our own technology to live and reproduce. In which case, we will turn to genetic modification as a necessity to save ourselves from our genetic squalor.
Or a more natural event will occur, natural disaster or disease. So long as this happens before our species is degraded completely, a big natural disaster would do the species some good. It's likely that a disease could spread through our population and wipe out a large portion of our numbers. The resulting post-apocalyptic world would require people who are healthy, strong and smart. The variation created by our rampant reproduction would be an asset in this case.
Those are the two paths I see for humanity. I don't like either one. It's a mess either way.
Mutations are not always harmful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre mutations always harmful? Never positive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy take? Whatever influence, whether machine, cultural, or environmental that hangs around long enough to have a profound influence on our survivability will be the major factor in human evolution. We've had a fairly short time to get used to modern technology. If it reaches some sort of stable plateau and stays there for the next few millenia, if Earth's population gets separated into distinct planetary, or even extrasolar populations which endure concerted selective pressures for survival, if a computer interface of some kind becomes a permanent fixture of human life, etc, etc, we'll see that affect human evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, that's a rather long term process. We can't be sure, on that account, what will change us, or branch new species off ours. One thing for sure, if rapid information intake and cognition becomes a constant of human experience, you will see that reflected in the evolution of the human mind.
Well, we're assuming that there's some magic "healing" or "resistance" gene that would no longer be selected for. But what about chance mutation that affects, say, blood clotting, or the ability to metabolize fats, or trans-fatty acids? I think this notion that modern life is somehow unstressful, or without its own hazards is erroneous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the same essential principle will always apply: what gives people better differential survival and reproductive success over many generations will be what guides our evolution, for better or worse. It's not going to be progressive or regressive, just adaptational and provisional, like it's always been.
Selection (differential reproduction) drives adaptation "forward", but it's also critically important for maintaining the status quo. Deleterious mutations are much more common than beneficial ones, and without some mechanism for removing them they will accumulate and degrade the gene pool. The genome is, after all, a highly complex system and complex systems are vulnerable to the forces of entropy. In nature, the mechanisms of selection remove bad mutations at the same rate as they arise (on average). The mechanisms of natural selection are: death and infertility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut in our modern world we don't accept death and infertility. We pour vast resources into our medical systems to save the lives of infants, children, and young adults who, for genetic reasons, would not otherwise be able to survive. And infertile adults now have medical interventions available to allow them to have the children they want. We have greatly reduced the negative selective pressure on deleterious genes so their load in the gene pool will inevitably increase. In future generations it may be that only a few rare individuals would be able to be born, grow up, and reproduce without medical intervention. Health care is currently expensive and in short supply. Imagine what it will be like in the future!
That's the problem: modern medicine gives us better lives now but condemns future generations to genetic infirmity. The solutions are (1) health care restrictions to let people die or remain infertile (immoral), (2) eugenics laws to restrict reproduction to the genetically fit (immoral, corruptible), and (3) genetic engineering (currently nonexistent). Clearly (3) is the way to go and we should be diverting research in that direction. I disagree with those who view genetic engineering as just a way for parents to create 6'6", blond, blue-eyed, 200 IQ, Aryan super children. GE will be used for removing clearly deleterious genes from our genomes so what we can continue to reap the benefits of modern medicine and still have healthy children.
Assuming that GE is never developed (and that no world-wide fascist government arises to impose options (1) or (2)), I foresee a future is which the average health of the population declines and the cost of health care increases, reaching an equilibrium where every bit of human labor not for growing food or providing shelter will be spent on caring for the sick and creating the medicines and devices necessary to keep each generation alive long enough to produce the next. Modern medicine, medieval misery.
"Premature babies can be reared in incubators, genetic illnesses can be treated, those incapable of reproducing have artificial alternatives, those who suffer injuries, diseases and any number of malaise can be cured/treated with technology and medicine. So those genes don't matter much and are thus able to spread."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, Nathaniel, I wrote my post before I had read yours. It looks like we've been thinking along the same lines.
In this excellent well-rounded article Prof. P. Ward, somehow, seemed to miss two important aspects in his forecast on the future human beings (?):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy Aspects: Man has always sought comfort in evolution and thereby minimize expending his own energy (that is in fact the definition of comfort as I defined). Thus he adopted bipedalism (saves energy in locomotion rather than go by all fours); cooking (saves energy in cooking); external memory usage (written works - clay tablets in ancient times to magnetic discs nowadays); using remote controls rather than walking around the household gadgets) etc. etc. He may innovate more of these so that the body may shrink and in an ultimate scenario only a large (relatively) brain may remain!! Frightening??
Another aspect of energy is the high energy consumption of brain. Any imbalance in this delicate energy apportionment could lead to abnormalities including schizophrenia.
The second aspect Dr. Ward neglected is the possibility of managed senescence including regeneration of organs, DNA exploiting the inherent self-surviving capability intrinsic within it and renewing itself.
Hope he will address these issues.
thanks and regards
"Except that war tends to take out many of the strongest and brightest, especially if there is a draft to swell ranks"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell let's hope we learn to prevent war in the first place then.
Also, the strongest and brightest are usually the victors in war, and therefore more likely to survive than the losing party.
"If your wife is from the phillipines, and yet she prefers cold, fine for her. I guess she didn't move to you in search of cold. She rather moved deliberately toward cold thereafter discovering she liked cold. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore likely people would've moved from 'warm' places to 'cold' places over the course of generations, in a pace so slow that the differences in temperature from day to day, season to season, year to year would be much greater than the difference of temperature individuals would've experienced from 'moving north'.
Beneficial or harmful to whom? The rapid rise of resistant bacteria (resistant to antibiotics) should show how beneficial mutations take place. In this case, of course, beneficial to the bacteria. Not so good for us. The "beneficial" ability of human beings in northern Europe to digest raw milk is another one on a bit bigger scale. The list is a very long one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeneficial or harmful to whom? The rapid rise of resistant bacteria (resistant to antibiotics) should show how beneficial mutations take place. In this case, of course, beneficial to the bacteria. Not so good for us. The "beneficial" ability of human beings in northern Europe to digest raw milk is another one on a bit bigger scale. The list is a very long one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe least likely scenario is that humanity will remain static. Mutations happen and differential reproduction does now and will continue to exist, so of course humans will change. Some of that change will be in our behavior and intellect. I don't buy the idea that human intelligence is immune to evolution. If it was, how did it evolve in the first place? (If you tell me that it was "emergent", you win; I can't argue against creationism.) And sure, culture forms a buffer between genes and behavior but it does not disconnect them entirely. Culture offers us choices of behavior, but if we are inclined to chose non-reproductive behavior we will not leave descendants. Future generations will increasingly choose to reproduce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't take the "only stupid people are breeding" stance. I agree with the notion that there are many kinds of intelligence and that future generations will not be dumber. But levels of some kinds of intelligence will decrease while others increase. Loosing out will the the "ivory tower" proclivities: math, science, literature, music, art, etc. These skills don't help our reproductive success nowadays and may even dampen them. The parents of future generations are those with "people" skills: street-smarts, charm, assertiveness, business acumen, hustle, charisma - the things that make you money and get you laid.
This raises the question: Why do we currently have scientists, artists, etc. among us? My guess is that they are holdovers from our hunter-gatherer ancestors . To procure food, avoid predators, and adapt to harsh conditions they needed to be keen observers of nature, brilliant deductionists, out-of-the box thinkers with the ability to imagine tools and the hand-eye coordination needed to construct them from stone, bone, and wood. These were life-and-death skills so they were selected for. These skills are still admired today but they are no longer reproductively advantageous and thus will be lost in future generations.
The most monumental event in human evolution was the discovery of agriculture. This completely changed the way humans get food, survive, and reproduce and thus completely changed the traits that evolution selects for. No more tracking game and fighting off predators. Settled farmers could easily ward off predators, but now needed were the abilities to thrive on less diverse food types, survive parasites, and organize armies to hold off invaders and procure more land to farm.
The debate about whether we continue to evolve sometimes misses one of the central points of evolutionary theory, which is that evolution (change) usually occurs in response to a change in habitat or other outside force. Species rarely change much if they are living successfully in a stable environment: witness the alligator. We are very successful right at the moment, but there is a major change in our habitat. Whereas we used to live in relatively stable populations/groups/nations, people travel extensively and interbreed with others worldwide,at a rate never before seen in our history. Will this change the human race? Probably, but not likely in any startling way. We're apt to start to look more like each other rather than like Orientals and Watusis and Innuits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for "evolving back into bacteria"...stop and think about that. The chance of any species evolving to become another existing species is bizarre....if there was a calamity so great as to foster change that extreme, we would most likely die, and the EXISTING bacteria might survive.
Nathanial has reduced the issue, correctly in my opinion, to the basic punctuated equilibrium position. Gradual accumulation of changes from the range of medical, GE , technology list or, a catastrophic event recreating isolated populations. I posit a third scenario, that there may already be isolated populations, with sufficient founders-members, that will have the opportunity move in a different direction. ( I am not suggesting a good/bad or up/down scenario, merely different.) The isolating factor would likely be socio-economic and cultural rather than geographic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can not point to any such population yet but I do think that the natural mechanisms are in place to foster such an event over the next millennium. I also hope that this doesn't come across as a "conspiracy theory" because that is not in my thinking. Just as natural geographic barriers have operated in the past, I suspect that cultural divides may be the next real driving force.
Can anyone identify a current population or demographic, that exhibits a self-contained breeding group of several thousand members, drawn from the general homo-sap population and with little to no genetic input from outside?
Regards
I don't see speciation happening naturally in the predictable future. Humanity is currently one global breeding population with little genetic diversity and practically non-existent geographic barriers. It's true that some groups set themselves apart for economic or religious reasons, but these cultural "barriers" never work and probably never will. Jews are strongly urged to marry within their faith, but Jewish populations around the world strongly resemble "native" residents of the region. This is not parallel evolution; it's genetic mixing. Other religions groups are no more successful in keeping their blood "pure". Are the castes in India separate species, with the Brahmans completely unsullied by the genes of lower castes? Do Amish kids always keep chaste during rumspringa and return to their communities? Socioeconomic differences don't work any better as genetic barriers. Did princes never go slumming in the villages, or masters never sneak into the slave quarters after dark? My region of California has large Asian populations, so the children of immigrants could easily obey their parents' urgings to marry within their kind -- but they don't; interracial couples are extremely common here. Those cultural barriers don't even last one generation. True, some groups have been able sustain isolation for a few generations, but speciation takes thousands of generations. It's really difficult to imagine any group of people being able to maintain a sustainable breeding population in isolation over such timescales.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, humans may evolve to a lower intelligence level and reach a point at which they can no longer construct boats or survive in difficult environments. Then geographic barriers would become effective again and humans could indeed speciate. Of course one human species could re-evolve the skills needed to spread across the globe, at which point is would drive the other species into extinctions and we would be back to where we are now.
Edward,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou argue the "out gene" position, the "prince that visits the village" which has no effect on the prince's lineage. The vast population will continue to mix and become increasingly homogeneous.
Speciation or at least, consequential morphological changes, can occur in far fewer than "thousand of generations". see Gould et al.
All that is required is that a small population of a few thousand stay isolated from inbound gen flow. Because it may not have not occurred yet, does not mean that some future socio-economic or cultural development may not permit or foster such isolation.
Regards,
OK, bad examples...but did the Ladies never dally with the footmen? Still, it's my contention that cultural isolation mechanisms are too leaky to lead to speciation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that consequential morphological changes in a population can and sometimes do happen in a few generations (like in breeding dogs). But for that group to become infertile with the main population would require one or several major structural changes in the genome to occur within those few generations. This is conceivable, I admit, and, given the many millions of species that have arisen on Earth, it's probably happened numerous times. I believe, however, that the vast majority of new species become infertile with their parent populations by acquiring numerous small genetics differences over many (possibly thousands) of generations of isolation.
So it's logically possible for cultural isolation to lead to new human species - I just see it as extremely unlikely. If we're mapping out probable futures for mankind I wouldn't spend much ink on that scenario. I do believe multiple human species will someday arise, but I believe it will be through old-fashioned geographic isolation. After our highly mobile civilization collapses and human numbers drop by an order of magnitude or so, some of the far-flung populations around the globe will be sufficiently isolated to diverge into their own species.
Evolution is an unprovable theory with no basis in science, religion, or philosophy. It fails to explain the purpose of man or what his fate will be after departing earth. Also, there is no way to prove the creation account in the Bible, either by scientific observation or experimentation, to be false. Therefore, one can only conclude that believing in the Bible is every bit as valid as believing in Darwinism. Both evolution and biblical creation fall outside the realm of science, thus rendering evolution empty and hopeless. Say what one wants to about the Bible, but all of the answers of man reside within its pages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is an unproved and unprovable theory that has no basis in science, philosophy, or religion. In conjuction, the biblical account of creation cannot be disproven by scientific observation or experimentation. Thus, creation is every bit as valid of belief system as evolution. Evolution offers only a material picture of man, with no real purpose for him on earth and no hope of life after death. Whether one accepts the Bible or not, it offers all the answers for man's existence that can possibly be asked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first question many ask in relation to the future development of humanity is whether or not we will survive at all. The British Astrophysicist Martin Rees in his book, 'Our Final Hour' estimates that we have a fifty- fifty chance of surviving the twenty- first century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother essential question which this article perhaps wisely avoids examining in depth, is 'How do we define the Essence of the Human?' Certainly it is more than having 'minds' or being 'rational' certainly it is irreparably connected with having a 'body'.
Here it seems to me that one danger optimistic futurists like Ray Kurzweil avoid is that the Singularity they are expecting, the new kind of 'organization of mind' which will come into being will not be human at all- and therefore we will have in this way 'progressed' ourselves out of existence.
As preliminary to answering the question of what Humanity is I would focus on our creative capacity, in religious terms our being creatures created in the image of God, and thus having the capacity for creation ourselves. Perhaps by centering on this aspect of our humanity we will able to at least sketch out some kind of ideal goal for the human future, and not leave it to time, chance and human greed and ruthlessness.
Well from my own personal experience, I believe that we are in fact, getting dumber. We are also becoming physically weaker, due mainly to machines doing all the physical labor for us. It will wind up with a small group of brainiacs fighting to survive the "Lord of the Flies" mass population. It may end up with a handful of extremely wealthy uglies using the dumb but beautiful not so smart but good in bed people as their slaves or servants. More of a H.G.Wells sort of view. Maybe wind up with a computer telling us where to go, what to do, how to do it, and so forth, like well cared-for cattle. we will live like worker bees in giant beehives. Don't get me started.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is 9atleast partially) adaptation to the environment, including the social factors. Till recent times, evolution is basically the physical structure with the mental & psychological aspect taking a minor role. With more and more loading of the brain in todays world, the remapping of the brain and mental aspects may play a dominating role in the human evolution from now on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "science-fiction vision of a big-brained human with a high forehead and higher intellect"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis scenario could not occur in humanity's most common environment:
- An increased size of the human birth canal would increase risks of fractured hips due to falls in earth's gravity
- An increased size of the human brain would increase risks in childbirth to both mother and child.
This could be overcome by:
- an increased tendency in the West to elect for use of cesarian sections
- moving to a low-gravity environment would in the short term (months-years) reduce bone rigidity
- moving to a low-gravity environment would in the long term (many generations) allow for changes to the human skeletal structure
In response to hab:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolution is an unproved and unprovable theory that has no basis in science, philosophy, or religion."
You misunderstand what a theory is in science. You don't prove or disprove entire theories science, you do that to hypotheses. The video after this paragraph explains the differences between scientific facts, laws, theories and hypotheses wonderfully. And you're right about evolution not being based in philosophy or religion, though, because it's a scientific theory.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzEqs
"In conjuction, the biblical account of creation cannot be disproven by scientific observation or experimentation. Thus, creation is every bit as valid of belief system as evolution."
You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. You can't disprove the Flying Pink Unicorn. Does that make them any more believable or truthful? No. Creation myths involve the supernatural, which science doesn't care about and doesn't consider precisely because it isn't testable or falsifiable.
"Evolution offers only a material picture of man, with no real purpose for him on earth and no hope of life after death."
Evolution isn't intended to define "purpose", and it isn't intended to argue for or against any kind of afterlife. Your "purpose" in life is whatever you decide to make it. That's not a matter of science. The afterlife is also not measurable, testable, or falsifiable. Thus, science doesn't address the issue because the scientific method cannot be applied.
"Whether one accepts the Bible or not, it offers all the answers for man's existence that can possibly be asked."
So does the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Buddhism, or Druidism. but just because an answer is written down in a book, that doesn't make it true. Just because a percentage of people accept it as true doesn't make it true in actuality. Religions can provide all the imaginary, comfortable, cozy answers they want to, but that doesn't mean those answers are true.
there is text aKherson December 2008 Savvov
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nd graphic about near past on the continents
Kherson December 2008 Savvov
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin stated that evolution selects the most apt to survive. But human behaviour is so varied that we sidestep most selection pressures. But our entire species is collectively taking the risk of destroying our environment, through climate change, ressource depletion, pollution and biological extinctions. In the past, man often tried to escape destiny by warfare. But waging war needs alliances. So what we really need is cooperative action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToothful: You are constantly being exposed to mutagens, whether you wish it or no. Ultraviolet light is mutagenic, background radiation from rocks and space is mutagenic. Even Oxygen is mutagenic. Yet you still can expect to live over three score and ten. That's what happens when a self sustaining/self replicating system (AKA life) develops in a randomly changing environment,ie,AKA EVOLUTION.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistr:
They just enjoy showing how dedicated they are to their particular brand of dogma/ignorance.
fightunethicalscience:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood Scientists? I suppose that means those who agree with your dystopian world view. Eugenics and master races were mis-applications of science for politically motivated reasons. Nothing in this article suggested that genetic manipulation be MANDATED by ANY authority. It MAY be something INDIVIDUALS do to themselves or their progeny and that's a whole different question. Next time, try actually reading the article.
The idea of evolution by natural selection is provably false. It rests on rampant assumptions, speculation, and extrapolations (such as the peppered moth obsession). It is as much a matter of faith as is creationism. It is not science. Creationist beliefs also have problems. These beliefs rest upon misinterpretations of much of the Old Testament record. An objective analysis of both sides reveals emptiness. An alternative to both is clearly required. The evolutionists, hamstrung by gradualism, will never explain the origin of consciousness or of language. But if we recognize the inefficacy of gradualism, and if we recognize that the Genesis creation account is not all completely literal, and if we consider a new perspective, a rational paradigm presents itself. (Pardon my breathless sentence.) We must revise our world view. Check out
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.eloquentbooks.com/ManAndHisPlanet.html
Finally, an article that answers the borg statements. No more likely physical evolution. Well, that is at least, until the next mass extinction which is likely to happen within the next 10,000 years. And then what? Back to square one? Seriously, I saw the question asked "How many species of us will there be next time?" Please, let them see this article. Natural selection would still be applicable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, an article that answers the borg statements. No more likely physical evolution. Well, that is at least, until the next mass extinction which is likely to happen within the next 10,000 years. And then what? Back to square one? Seriously, I saw the question asked "How many species of us will there be next time?" Please, let them see this article. Natural selection would still be applicable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, an article that answers the borg statements. No more likely physical evolution. Well, that is at least, until the next mass extinction which is likely to happen within the next 10,000 years. And then what? Back to square one? Seriously, I saw the question asked "How many species of us will there be next time?" Please, let them see this article. Natural selection would still be applicable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, an article that answers the borg statements. No more likely physical evolution. Well, that is at least, until the next mass extinction which is likely to happen within the next 10,000 years. And then what? Back to square one? Seriously, I saw the question asked "How many species of us will there be next time?" Please, let them see this article. Natural selection would still be applicable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all the collected knowledge of our past generations the knowledge that our current generation is now acquiring; what will happen to it all when our future generation continue this collection of knowledge? Will our genetic code recognize the need for us to retain past knowledge? Despite having written records of everything, eventually it will become impossible for us to remember and relearn the past. Maybe a solution to this problem will come genetically with time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, Genetics has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that natural selection is a very important factor in evolution. At this point anyone to argue the point is either ignorant of current scientific events or has made the decision to stay with the archaic thinking of yesterday. H. Allen Orr states in "Testing Natural Selection" Scientific American Jan. 2009 "...natural selection is a common driver of evolutionary change even in the sequences of nucleotides in DNA."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is, we as a species will continue to evolve. How we do so is anyone's guess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou and I will not be here to see the result.
its called the "out of africa movement" or multiregional hypothesis in which modern H. sapiens evolved from homo erectus in African after 200,000 years ago and then migrated to Europe and Asia, displacing the Neandertals and other "Homo" species living there. The out of africa hypothesis predicts that some fossils of the earliest humans are found in Africa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe "origin of conciousness" evolved as the brain did. the human brain ddi not begin to enlarge to its present size and complexity until long after human ancestors had evolved bipedal locomotion. human culture also began when human ancestors started making tools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is said that after the dinosoars were extint due to a medeorite hitting the earth and the particles blocking the atmosphere from the sun, plants died and there was a catalyst of dying dinosoars, from hervabores dying to carniovres. Shew-like creatures were left and evolved into primates. We evolved from primates.
Creationism is just a belief. Everything in nature balances each other out. Learn the laws of chemistry and go into DNA replication, then countinue on with evolution. Everything will make sense.
So glad someone noticed and commented on this, all things considered, 'prefered outcome'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe possibility of evolving back into bacteria is comforting and possibly a 'preferred outcome'. So glad someone has mentioned this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is nothing more then search space optimization. The periodic population explosions and crashes allow for non hill climbing exploration of the search space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf multiple mutations are needed for a benefit to be conferred and each individual mutation is non beneficial then during a population explosion it is more likely that the individuals will be able to pass on these non beneficial mutations.
If you think humans are no longer subject to selection pressures then you should read Malthus, cited as a key influence by Darwin.
It is a possibility that natural selection will eliminate mankind before he gets the chance to evolve. Creationists and all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolution Through the Eyes of Ishmael"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLatest SA issue on Evolution was helpful for me. Evolution has become a coherent and compact model of natural process. It is well supported by studies in Microbiology and Genetics as demonstrated by articles in your magazine. Meanwhile, even as a Christian, I don't precisely understand my whole Bible, but still trying...
Allow me to use situations from Herman Melville's "Moby Dick", Chapters 9 and 36, as vaguely humorous attempts to argue that Evolution could be viewed within the context that greater models of existence may yet be formalized. While believing Evolution as a model of current knowledge, I need not disbelieve in God or Creation.
In Chapter 36; Captain Ahab, after persuading the crew to pursue the white-headed whale for a gold piece, argued further with Starbuck in this manner; "thou requirest a little lower layer", and just later "Hark ye yet again- the little lower layer". So, I'll argue;
(1) "a little lower layer" : Suspicion. Chapter 9, Father Mapple sermonized about Jonah; "He will not confess himself suspected; but that itself is strong suspicion". If Evolution is not itself suspected, that itself may be strong suspicion. If Evolution becomes completely and consistently modeled, like a gold piece, let me say finitely axiomatized, doesn't that provide "strong suspicion" for some greater model. The notions of impredicativity and mathematical incompleteness imply that a finitely axiomatized system may not intrinsically model itself completely, be it a computer, an arithmetic or whatever. External components from some greater model validate and help predicate any well formed theory or model.
(2) "Hark ye yet again- the little lower layer" : Mystery. Chapter 36, Ahab speaks; "be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal". Is Evolution agent, or principal? Means of change, or the change itself? Impredicative or Predicative? These questions are of course synthetic, but mystery remains. There's yet mystery between agent and principal, inspiration and revelation, whether pursuing Moby Dick or exploring the world.
Avast, in regard to human endeavors, my mind's mostly in mathematics any ways, so let's quote our shipmate Ferdinand Gonseth when he wrote to Paul Bernays and Kurt Godel in years gone by: He wrote of mathematics, "not all of our methods are completely predicative". And shipmates, there's enough mystery in that canticle to fill our sails all the way to the Feegees!
If we analyze the athletic World records' relative frequency, we will have an idea whether human evolution has essentially ceased,slowed or speeded up
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeeping an open mind to ALL AVAILABLE POSIBILITIES is what keeps us humans prepared to recieve the future. To suggest that some scientiests are "looking for immortality" simply by postulating theories of the future of our evolution is not only nieve it is just plain closed minded. You are obviously one who would simply close your eyes to unyealding progress despite it engulfing you in every direction. Good luck with that method, but the dark ages ended a while back. Why don't you check your calendar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeeing this, i feel pretty tired of the question. Since i don't know anything sure about evolution. But are other people sure? If not, i suggest we could only say "I'm not sure, but I'm curious what will happen". What we could predict is rather how culture or science, our life will change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter Ward alludes to permanent space settlements as a new niche but does not elaborate,although they may be important for the future of human evolution. One possible effect may be the development of resistance to cosmic radiation by acceleration of chromosomal repair mechanisms which might also be important in resistance to and the repair of carcinogenic mutations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis might truly be a giant step in the evolution of Homo sapiens toward Homo spaciens.
Peter Ward alludes to permanent space settlements as a new niche but does not elaborate, although they may be important for the future of human evolution. One possible effect may be the development of resistance to cosmic radiation by acceleration of chromosomal repair mechanisms which might also be important in resistance to and the repair of carcinogenic mutations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis might truly be a giant step in the evolution of Homo sapiens toward Homo spaciens.
People keep having such a linear concept of evolution even among people who should know better. Do the math!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter 600 years or so virtually everyone is a decedent of those who lived 600 years before as possible ancestors. Some will appear more times than others but few will "Die out" completely, it is only traits that increase of not. The number of children had will have little actual effect as negative traits are what survives or not, and that takes many generations.
With a very large interbreeding population traits change very slowly, and only pandemic will change them quickly. Even then the trait that is lucky enough to hang out near the site of the anti-pandemic gene will be carried forward quite aside from its own favorableness otherwise.
Evolution is a theory. There is no hard evidence of it being true, in fact, there is more evidence against it then there is for it. People who believe it are blind to the holes that it is filled with. As seen in the final interview in Expelled, the main argumentor for Darwinism cannot even tell you how life could have jump started except maybe "molecules piggybacked on crystals," (what?). He didnt even say where these molecules came from even though those molecules are the life that is in question. There is no plausible explination for the theory of evolution. If you look at the world around you, all the perfect designs for the smallest animals and cells. The brilliace of how they work and what is needed to be done to keep them alive, and if one out of thousands of circumstances is slightly different, it cannot happen, they cannot survive or work. How can all this, the beautiful world around us, the perfect placement of the planets and stars, the size of the universe, everything made in this world, how can it have happened through chance? How could it happen through a process of one out of millions of possibilities, the right one happens every time, in all of the billions of situations that it happend? It couldnt have. Evolution is a theory full of mistakes. It cannot explain how this world came into place. Tell me this, if life is just a world evolving, and goes on with no purpose but to keep the evolving process moving, what is the purpose of our living? What is going to happen after we die? Before this theory was ever even dreamed of, the tribes of the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Russian Mongols, all civilizations believed in an afterworld. Evolutions dissolves this belief and leaves us with nothing. If evolution is true, then we are here for nothing and leave no impact on this world, life is pointless, there is no reason to our being. Why belive in a theory that strips us of our humaness and sets us on the level of dogs? Why belive in a theory that strips us of our reason to life? Why believe in a theory that leaves us hopeless? Why? There is no point, if you believe in evolution I am sorry, but you believe your life is destined for nothing. Why believe this? I would like to know why this appeals to you evolutionists. The world was created in all its majesty, created, not evolved over billions of years. Please, if you believe in this theory, I implore of you to leave it behind. If you believe it happend then your life has no point, why not explore other possibilities?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou made the sme post on another page.
I responded on this page
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie
At the time of continental migration europe as well as the rest of the world was in a state of tropical "bliss". Meaning that those travelers from Africa did not realize much in tempurature varitions. For the most part europe did not become a frozen tundra for at least 5000 years after the arrival. More that enough time for adaptation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI envisage that we will tamper with our DNA to get rid of all the useless stuff, then add things that will give us better resistance to diseases and better faculties. Maybe growing a second brain in our body cavity to give us more brain power. Then something that will allow us to consciously express obsolete genes and in effect become shape shifters, for example growing gills so that we can colonise the oceans. Or maybe go back along our evolutionary branch and up another; grow wings to fly, perhaps, and cut down on all the carbon fuels? Grow photosynthetic cells on our skin so that we don't need so much food? Heaps of possibilities in redesigning our bodies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe next step in the evolution of man is the emergence of something greater and more complex than human consciousness. Hasn't that arrived already as the computer?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is the best possible explanation there is to date for how "we" got here. Without studying it one has to take it on faith but it does sound plausible. In my personal reality I am content with knowing my past to only a few generations. Whether the world was created or evolved it makes no difference to me. The present moment is all I can really be sure about and the majestic music of Back that I'm listening to right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome self-important person just feel reluctant to accept the idea that all human beings originate from Africa. How can such an advanced civilization as "ours" have an ancestral lineage in Africa? That's completely unaccetable. With this antagonism mind, of course there are evidences available to support his assertions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas it not been shown that skull base folding has occurred in human brain development? and the logical path is for future unfolding?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn comment to the prior post; there is evolutionary forces at work and the "hand" of change is our modern society, our high carb high protein diets, and vastly reduced physical exercise periods, combined with long hours of seated posture, will have impact after a handful of generations. This is the contemporary guiding hand of evolution that is in question.
We could very well de-evolve under vastly different circumstances if for example if human propagation was to favour a reduction in stature, like if the earth was to gain mass leading to an increase in gravity. There would in this scenerio favour dwarfism, and guess what humans would have an adaptive advantage in that heavy gravity environment?
evolution is a function of necessity... i don't think today's humans are that desperate, or say, in need for evolution!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrimitive people followed game (wildlife). When this became exhausted in a warm climate, they moved to find game in a colder climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have to reason on these issues. One more. Evolution is a spiritual phenomenon. If you don't believe it, read my book.
I think as of what is known now that future humans contrary to thought have so much geneticly to pull from and science continues to prove and has from the start of man never failed to prove that we are constintly evolving and richard dawlkins and charles darwin can not be that far off that we may just be a syborg 135 year old man or woman as grumpy as could be at the nerve racking 67 year olds running around or genetically pushed toward that "dog" like trend due to our sexual thoughts of the opposite sex and driven to another speration of species in the we may be what ever has a miracle and natural selection only differ by the person who defines the words defines the species they may fall into in the future
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think as of what I know of Human DNA the evolution of man and the study of human life that charles darwin and richard dawlkins could not be to far off that we have from the start proven and continuesly prove that science has prevaled and that we continue to evolve and as this article states because of the city and social evolution we may just be 135 year old cyborg humans in the future grumpy over the 76 year old rug rats or even this so called "dog" style of thought of the opposite sexes we may find humans becoming more then just one species again differing in thought and then by body that a miracle and natural selection differ by the person who defines the two words
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, with all the arguments back and fro I suppose there's not a lot we can do about it, any how, accept maybe drop another bomb or two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTO THE BEGINNING OF TIME AND TO THE END TIME, GOD IS THE CREATOR . THIS MESSAGE IS TO WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND US . WHEN YOU TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR OWN LIFE AND BYPASS THE FATHER,THINGS GETS OUT OF WACK. THE FUTURE IS COMING AND I KNOW GOD WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN, I AM THE END OF TIME. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was interested in the above article and continued my on-line search and came across an absolutely fascinating website www.thenextstepinhumanevolution.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that our world is full of disbelievers, perhaps its time we opened our minds to the real possibilities out there.
it definately feels as though different areas on earth are evolving at a different rate. Is this because of the different climate in regions? How can an evaluation be made to say which areas are the most evolved and which is the least evolved? Does ones intelect or physical features determine the degree of evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are genetic reasons why it is false to say that any organism can develop into any organism. Evolution is like a tree that branches out. We could evolve into more specialized human beings, but considering the enormous genetic mixing that is going on at present, the basic prerequisites for an evolutionary path are not met, not according to contemporary theory, which demands that populations become isolated from the main stream in order to diverge from it. But increased abilities to fight certain organisms, sure. The plague that killed off half of Europe, and other epidemics have had their tragic selective effects. About intelligence: Interestingly enough the intellectuals of the world are those who breed the least. Perhaps that is a good thing, as too much talent can be real burden. An empirical test would have to compare a Cro Magnon's DNA with representatives of Mankind today. That would make an interesting article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Not only has Homo sapiens been doing some major genetic reshuffling since our species formed, but the rate of human evolution may, if anything, have increased" -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I didn't will my body to do any reshuffling. So, if there is no God and I haven't done anything consciously, then who on earth is doing the reshuffling?
I never willed for any genetic changes. I don't have the faintest idea about how genes work. So, who is doing all the major genetic shuffling for me?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand... war is likely functioning as an evolutionary 'eliminator' of those most likely to wage war. We have ceased in individual selection a long time ago. Most of our selection is broad based species group selection now. Unless we destroy our available environment before this 'selection' runs its course we will likely see less and less war per capita as time goes on. Another 'advantage for the weak' in the evolution of the artificial ape.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould like to introduce myself I am another nut!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is true, hence the huge time span for actual physical change to be noticed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the same reason athiests read and comment on religious discussions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil a species goes extinct, evolution never stops. We can speculate what direction our future evolution will take but there are too many variables and unknowns to consider so, we will never know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif we see every day we are evolving so it is close minded people who don't accept this, we will continue evolving, we will became an universal race because space is getting shorter humans from diferent races are mixing together
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the article interesting. After physiological psych, I have often wondered if we will begin to "self-evolve" our species through neurological advancements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution won't ever stop, but will continue in an increasingly trivial tangent- unless of course something drastic happens to alter our way of life entirely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDue to the the ever advancing technology of health care, as well as the increasing redundancy of our hunter-gatherer genetics, we are no longer dependent on our adaptations to survive. Obviously, future generations will inherit the characteristics of those who reproduce most. Today surely, that would be the most attractive: those who can best provide for a family, the most loving, the best personalities, or even the best looking.
Call me optimistic, but I foresee a good-looking, talented future for us.
this site seems to think we will all have blonde hair and blue eyes http://www.thearyanrace.com ehat do you think is that why nordics have bigger brains
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseven many of those who specialize in the evolution of man have never actually seen an original hominid fossil, and far fewer have ever had the opportunity to handle or study one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this